It looks like you've got Ad-block enabled.While we respect your decision and choice of plugin, it's important to realize that ads pay the bills, and keep the lights on.

We understand many sites use annoying pop-up ads and other manipulative techniques that have made ads annoying in generaland created the need for Ad-Blockers.

All we humbly ask that you add TopSecretWriters.com to the ad-block whitelist. Without the revenue generated from advertising, we would be unable to provide this great content free of charge. If everyone ran ad-block, TopSecretWriters would be no more.

Billy Meier UFO Research Group Keeps the Fraud Under Wraps

The Billy Meier UFO Research Group (BMUFOR) is interested in collecting and documenting evidence and research involving the Billy Meier UFO case (1). With comprehensive evidence collated, the research group then presents its own original research.

As Top Secret Writers wrote in 2013, the Billy Meier UFO Cult has a long history of lies and manipulation (2). The Billy Meier UFO Research Group expertly demonstrates the lies both Meier and his accomplice Michael Horn have told for many decades. Due to its impressive and meticulous research on a controversial subject and the fact that the research group attempts to set asides biased beliefs when researching UFOs and extra-terrestrials when presenting their own original research, the BMUFOR has to be one of the best fraud research groups on the Internet.

Billy Meier is a Swiss citizen who, starting in the 1950s but rising to particular prominence in the 1970s, published a series of accounts and photographs of alleged UFOs, alongside the claim he had been in contact with aliens. Meier effectively teamed up with Michael Horn, an American publicist, who supported Meier’s UFO claims.

Billy Meier claims that he has been in contact with “extra-terrestrial humans” since he was five years old and asserts to still be in regular contact with what he refers to as “the Plejarens” – he’s now in his 70s. This makes the Billy Meier case one of the most famous and controversial UFO cases known in modern Ufology.

The BMUFOR has so far presented its analysis of Meier’s space and time travel pictures (which Meier supposedly photographed during his trip on a giant ET spacecraft throughout our Universe and even to a parallel universe), “scientifically accurate” prophecies and predictions, and purported Extraterrestrial Metal & Crystal samples.

BMUFOR acknowledges that they try to remain as objective as possible and limit their conclusions to ones only based on evidence.

Meier’s images

BMUFOR investigated more than 50 of Meier’s so-called (3) space and time travel images. These 50+ pictures contain not just UFO images but several images – planets Mars, Venus and Jupiter, Ring Nebula, Horsehead Nebula, Universal barrier or tunnel, future destruction of San Francisco by mega-earthquake, ET men and women, giant ET spacecraft called Great Spacer, pteranodon and cave men on alien planets, Apollo-Soyuz and other terrestrial and extraterrestrial spacecrafts, etc.

The research group found that almost all of the photos, including the ones Meier contests are genuine, were “crude hoaxes” which most certainly have come from sources like TV shows, documentaries and films from different countries, including Russia, the UK and Germany.

The other sources, BMUFOR found, include illustrations from paleo artists Zdenek Burian, natural history painter Rudolph Zallinger, illustratior Rick Guidice and artist and novelist Ludek Pesek, as well as NASA spacecraft imagery, Earth-based astronomy pictures, as well as NASA animated simulations from its annual Aeronautics and Space Report.

The BMUFOR also cites discrepancies between the ‘optical characteristics of the Meier’s camera and the focus features in his developed pictures.’

In its conclusion to its analysis of Meier’s space and time travel pictures, BMUFOR states that the many critiques to Meier’s UFO material, strongly suggests that not only are Meier’s space and time travel images dubious and improbable, but are, in many cases ‘impossible.’

Meier’s Prophecies and Predictions

What makes BMUFOR research very unique and conclusive from other earlier analyses conducted by different investigators and independent researchers is that it has investigated Meier’s nearly 200 so-called “scientifically accurate” and “fulfilled” prophecies and predictions which Meier, FIGU and Michael Horn have been promoting as evidence of his contacts with ETs.

BMUFOR obtained the original German contact notes (which never was done by anyone before) of Meier and verified whether or not Meier really published the “stunning” prophecies/predictions before the events occurred. Their research, other than exposing the pseudoscientific nonsense, has conclusively demonstrated that there is not one single prophecy or prediction that Meier has accurately foretold before the events occurred. And most importantly, they uncovered so much of evidence strongly indicating that the so-called “scientifically accurate” and “fulfilled” prophecies/predictions have been deliberately manipulated in order to make them correspond with the events or discoveries after they have occurred.

You can view some of the examples of FIGU publications BMUFOR has collected (for their investigation) as containing specific claims made by members of FIGU or Billy Meier himself, about the alleged accuracy and fulfillment of numerous prophecies and predictions on BMUFOR’s page titled (5) ‘Prophecies, Prediction and Probability Calculations.’

In order to shed more light on BMUFOR’s impressive research and its inspiration behind dedicating so much time to exposing Meier’s UFO fraud, Top Secret Writers caught up with Mahesh Karumudi of BMUFOR to ask a few questions.

TSW: How many years have you been researching the Billy Meier case?

BMUFOR: My first introduction to the Meier case was in the year 2008. At that time, I was fascinated by the quantity and quality of a few dozen clear daytime purported UFO photographs that I have seen. This prompted me to study the several thousand pages of contact notes – that contains the transcripts of conversations that supposedly happened between the Swiss contactee Meier and his Pleiadian/Plejaren ET contactors, on a wide variety of topics – science, history, philosophy, current events, conspiracies, warnings on overpopulation, destruction of environment, etc.

In the beginning, I paid almost no attention to the question of scientific validity and authenticity of the evidence, as most of my free time was spent reading the thousands of pages of contact notes. And what little information I have come across on the evidence, I have given Meier the benefit of doubt and conjectured that there could be at least some truth to his claims.

It was only much later, somewhere around the year 2011, that I really started to put on my skeptical hat and dig deeper into the evidence, especially the so-called “fulfilled” prophecies/predictions supposedly delivered both by the ETs and Meier himself, and also the several dozen “genuine” photographs which Meier allegedly photographed during his many space and time travel trips which even today are being published in the latest edition of German contact notes and other books, and likewise available for sale from FIGU.

Around that time, I have directly contacted FIGU and explained them about my idea of creating a website that documents and researches all the pro and con evidence on the case, especially the “fulfilled” prophecies and predictions which requires their assistance. At first they responded to my idea positively, and I was being told that even Meier had a discussion with the alleged ET Ptaah on this that also concurred.

But matters suddenly changed when I requested FIGU to provide me with the older editions of contact notes that supposedly contains the “fulfilled” prophecies and predictions in unaltered form. FIGU responded back by saying that they couldn’t help me because, since these older publications contain many errors and printing mistakes, they have literally burnt these books down. And they instructed me to use the latest edition of contact notes that has been published only since 2002.

Having become perplexed and suspicious of it, I have learned with the help of a FIGU member Nicolas Weiss (from Luxembourg) that another FIGU member Achim Wolf (moderator of German FIGU forum and also runs the FIGU Germany website) has these older editions. They both, at first, acknowledged the importance of verifying the older publications and agreed to help me, but later they suddenly withdrew because they reported that FIGU has warned them that if they would use these older editions for my investigation, their FIGU memberships would be revoked.

Such unwarranted and illogical behaviour by FIGU only made me even more suspicious of their claims. After a few years of search with a lot of setbacks and patience, I have finally found a handful of people, a couple of whom are FIGU members, who have these older edition German contact notes published since 1970’s and 1980’s and other required publications, and also at the same time are willing to take the risk by assisting me with my research.

The many dozens of the so-called “fulfilled” prophecies/predictions which Meier, FIGU and Michael Horn have been claiming for decades to be “iron clad” and “scientifically accurate,” our analysis revealed, have either been backdated or modified over the years to fit the current events or trends, all in order to make them seem like genuine and accurate prophecies/predictions.

Also, our research into more than 50 of Meier’s space and time travel pictures has revealed the true, original terrestrial sources of these images as being – television shows, movies, illustrations, NASA images and documentaries, etc. On our website that started in 2014, we have published our exclusive research into these two categories of evidence that clearly and beyond the shadow of a doubt, demonstrate that the evidence has been deliberately faked.

TSW: What was the most compelling evidence you found that Meier was lying about the sources of his so-called UFO and extra-terrestrial humans’ accounts?

BMUFOR: Undoubtedly, the 50+ fake space and time travel pictures which Meier even to this day publishes and promotes as being verified by the ETs as genuine. If you want me to pick one example, I would choose the Universal Barrier or Tunnel photo (6).

Meier claimed that while he was onboard a spacecraft at the “boundary” of our universe, he photographed a huge tunnel that connects our universe with a parallel universe, somewhere between July 17-22, 1975. Skeptics, in the 1970’s, have pointed to an identical looking painting of Gerard O’Neill’s Island III design cylindrical space colony, made by the artist named Rick Guidice, published in Smithsonian magazine in February 1976, as evidence that Meier simply copied from it.

Meier and the alleged ETs in return claimed that Meier didn’t copy it since he first photographed his picture in July 1975, which is 7 months before the illustration was published in Smithsonian magazine. They even went further and claimed that the artist Rick Guidice has indeed copied his illustration from Meier’s photograph.

To settle this issue, I have directly contacted the artist Rick Guidice, NASA archivist and also filed a NASA FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. As it turns out, Rick Guidice had already finished his painting before May 27, 1975 and that this painting was also first disseminated to the media and public through NASA press releases on June 16, 1975, several weeks before Meier allegedly photographed the Universal Barrier somewhere between July 17 and 22.

Another piece of compelling evidence stems from the dozens of so-called “fulfilled” prophecies and predictions which ultimately turned out to have been fabricated as well. And I would like to pick the Meier’s 5,100-year-old Iceman prediction (7) as an example, which Meier, FIGU and Michael Horn claims have been precisely fulfilled and demands $1,000,000 prize money from James Randi’s foundation for meeting their paranormal challenge.

Meier and his proponents claim that Meier has accurately predicted the cause of death – ARROW stuck in the back – of a man buried in the Italian Alps about 5,000 years ago and published it in 1991, nearly a decade before scientists discovered it in July 2001 using a chest X-ray and a CT scan taken of the Iceman’s corpse.

Even though they didn’t present any evidence for a 1991 publication containing the information, they however presented a scan of a copyright page of contact notes book indicating the purported publication date as 1996, i.e. 5 years before scientists made the discovery. If this were true, it would have been the best evidence either for Meier’s paranormal ability or being in contact with ETs. But as it turns out, when I looked into two different books of the same 1996 edition, I discovered that there was no mention of ARROW at all. It was revealed that the purported 1996 edition which Michael Horn presented in his website as evidence is actually a reprint version that was published after the year 2001, i.e. after the scientists discovered the ARROW in Iceman’s back.

When I confronted Michael Horn with this irrefutable fact, he apparently tried to silence me by offering me a free trip to US (where I would be introduced ‘as a scientist’ and have to speak only positively on the Meier case) for not publishing my analysis, which I flatly rejected and went ahead with its publication. Apparently Michael Horn doesn’t want the truth to come out. Was it because he was afraid that it would make his wallet lighter or was there any other reason? I simply don’t know.

TSW: Was it difficult to remain impartial when conducting the research?

BMUFOR: At first, from what little information I have read, I held mostly positive views towards the case but later turned very skeptical when I really started to dig deeper into the evidence and question things. Only the transition time was difficult (read as ’disappointed’) because in the beginning I spent a couple of years reading all those thousands of pages of contact notes, before really dwelling into weighing and scrutinizing the evidence part.

And when I began to put on my skeptical hat, it was pretty disappointing at first because lots of stories I read earlier turned out to be just that, stories with zero or only slim or dubious or negative evidence. As I started digging more and more, most if not all of the evidence invariably fell under the same pattern, which I got quite accustomed to.

TSW: Do you think Billy Meier will ever admit to perpetuating a UFO hoax?

BMUFOR: While the investigations so far done by various skeptics and researchers on the Meier case including ours has uncovered strong and unambiguous evidence for fraud, one can’t conclusively prove that it is Meier who did it.

In my opinion, given the evidence, based on the Occam’s Razor principle the explanation that Meier (with the help of his accomplices) has most likely fabricated everything is on very firm ground, rather than any other explanation that could be put forth.

And regarding whether Meier would ever admit to having perpetrated a hoax, I personally can’t think of any compelling reason for him to do that, since he has no shortage of believers, however tiny their numbers are, who are either uninformed or gullible. As the famous saying goes – ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’

Truly, one has to be either terribly naive or a conspiracy nut to buy into Meier’s unsubstantiated and crazy excuses, especially whenever skeptics find evidence that debunks Meier’s claims. For example the earlier investigations (8) conducted by the Ground Saucer Watch, ICUFON (Intercontinental UFO Galactic Spacecraft Research and Analytic Network) and others in 1970’s have concluded that Meier’s UFO/beamships pictures were hoaxed by a variety of methods and techniques – suspending model with a string, double exposure, double print, etc.

Meier, of course, rejects these allegations and claims (see contact report 130, 1980) that all of these manipulations to his supposedly “unaltered originals” were forged by MIB (Men in Black) and several other shadowy organizations and people in order to discredit him and his mission on Earth.

Another example is when skeptics have discovered the purported ET women Asket and Nera (9) in Meier’s images to be none other than the Dean Martin show dancers, Meier once again blamed the MIB and an evil ET group Bafath that supposedly lived under the Gizeh pyramids for replacing his originals.

And at another time, when skeptics have discovered that the base of the “wedding cake” UFO or WCUFO looked identical to a garbage can lid (10), Meier claimed that the identical nature of the garbage can lid and the base of the Wedding Cake UFO is that the engineers at the garbage can lid manufacturing unit somehow found old blueprints for UFOs provided by the Plejarens that were telepathically sent to pre-WWII German engineers.

And also whenever any scientist (Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss , Seth Shostak, Phil Plaits, Stuart Robbins, etc.) or professional skeptics (Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc.) or scholars either didn’t respond to pro-Meier emails or point to the above or similar deplorable examples for their negative stance on the Meier case, Meier and FIGU, especially Michael Horn have and would often accuse them for lacking the ‘courage and intellectual honesty’ to publicly acknowledge that Meier is the real deal. He also accuses them for being a part of a vast global conspiracy that is hell-bent on suppressing the Meier case at all costs. There are a ton of such bizarre claims and excuses in the Meier case.

With this kind of “favorable” climate where every unbelievable and insane excuse or explanation is uncritically accepted without it being questioned and challenged, I don’t see any reason why Meier would want to blow the lid. And even if he did, his followers would come up with rather “creative” explanations, one of which would be that Meier after receiving several death threats to either him, his family members or his friends, might have been forced by CIA or MIB or by some other evil extraterrestrials to make those self-damaging statements.

TSW Would like to thank Mahesh Karumudi of BMUFOR for taking the time to speak with us on this topic.

What are your thoughts on the Billy Meier fraud and the diligent research BMUFOR has carried out to expose Meier’s fake pictures and prophecies/predictions’ and claimed contact with Pleidian /Plejaren’ aliens? We’d love to hear our readers’ thoughts on this long-standing and controversial UFOology case.

Great article! I share your conclusion that the majority, if not all, of Billy Meiers claims, predictions and alleged original photographs were faked. But I also believe that at the onset of his ET experience, Billy may have actually filmed a real UFO. But I think what may have happened is that after Billy captured an authentic UFO, he thought they would return and when they didn’t, his ego and imagination took over in a way never seen before in the UFO phenomenon. Unlike George Adamski, who I think Billy modeled his experience around, Billy couldn’t face the fact that he was like the many ordinary people who film extraordinary things. And he snapped. FIGU is the expected result from such disparate gap between illusion and reality. Lies upon lies, covered in hoax and wrapped in paranoia.

Taro

I have some comments for this and other articles regarding the Meier case. However, I get the impression that comments defending the validity of the Meier case are selectively blocked, so this first one will be brief.

Mahesh has spent considerable effort “investigating” Meier’s space and time travel images. However, he distinctly avoids the photogrammetric analyses completed by Dilettoso then independently verified by Davis which concluded Meier’s UFO images free of hoax. Meier has provided an explanation for his space trip photos: They were tampered with or planted into his collection. Until this explanation can be ruled out, would it not be reasonable to consider these images as contaminated evidence? Any conclusions based on them would be premature. The photogrammetric analyses have never been scientifically refuted. Why are they ignored? The only mention of these analyses are a copy/paste of Meier’s Wikipedia page.

The complete dismissal of scientifically validated evidence does not appear to be consistent with the objectivity acknowledged by BMUFOR.

Taro

That’s pure speculation. His physical evidence has been scientifically validated free of hoax. These included hundreds of photos, numerous 8mm film, sound recordings and metal-crystal samples. These analyses have never been properly refuted. Have you studied any of these analyses yourself?

Taro – nothing Billy Meier has produced has been “scientifically validated” by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite, in fact. They’ve all been shown to be nothing more than outright, blatant hoaxes.

Mahesh Karumudi

“Meier has provided an explanation for his space trip photos: They were tampered with or planted into his collection.”

Not the ones that have been published in the latest edition of German contact notes and other books, and likewise available for sale from FIGU. Meier even claims (Contact Report 384, 2005) that these have been verified and authenticated by Ptaah in around 2001. And moreover, when I have recently asked Meier and FIGU about these pictures, they are still defending them to be genuine. Their responses have been documented on my website. I am interested to discuss evidence and what it says or doesn’t say, not some petty theories one concocts as a reaction to evidence that beyond reasonable doubt indicates fraud.

By the way, why don’t you simply write to Meier and inform him about your theory of “contamination” by MIB or others, and find it out for yourself.

“The complete dismissal of scientifically validated evidence does not appear to be consistent with the objectivity acknowledged by BMUFOR.”

As Ryan Dube above indicated, Meier’s photos have never been scientifically validated, at least to the required extent needed to rule out any hoax hypothesis. Even the original investigators seems to have never made any conclusive statements (at least in print) on their photographic analysis. In Preliminary Investigation Report, pgs. 5-6, Wendelle uses the word ‘PROBABLY’ regarding the larger size of the “unidentified” objects (at a distance from the camera) in the photos that were tested. And of course I am going to cover all these topics in due time. Including the ones where the same computer testing you are pointing to, according to Wendelle, revealed that Meier’s photos are nothing but double exposures.

Taro

Ryan – You may have missed my other comment here where I mentioned the photogrammetric analyses. Photogrammetry is the science of taking measurements from photographs. Two independent methods were used verifying each others’ results. In the first, distances from the camera were measured using the minute changes in blur level resulting from their position within the depth of field. In the second, the same distances were measured using the minute changes in grey shading due to atmospheric effects. A third method of verification involved taking control sets of images, on site, using a mockup model created specifically for this purpose. They used not only their own cameras but loaded Meier’s camera with their own film for him to operate. While on site the investigators recorded precise measurements which included using survey equipment for distant landmarks. These three verification methods resulted in the conclusion of large, distant objects thus ruling out the use of small models. Additionally, every grain of film was inspected using microscopes and microdensitometers to rule out the use of suspension mechanisms as well as known photographic manipulation techniques. Light sources both direct and reflected as well as above and below the visual range were verified for consistency. These methods were performed by a photographic expert and then independently verified by a physicist in an entirely separate lab. Neither of these analyses have ever been scientifically refuted. No one has ever produced pre-digital UFO images that have met these same scientific standards.

Sounds that were recorded with multiple witnesses present using multiple recording devices in multiple locations, one of which was equipped with a volume limiting function for excessive decibel levels were analysed by a number of sound engineers using spectrum analyzers and oscilloscopes. These analyses found that the unique pattern of numerous, discrete and shifting frequencies as well as their constantly changing amplitudes were not possible with any known synthesis methods. Another recording was similarly analysed at the Naval Undersea Sound Center in Groton, Connecticut where multiple background sounds were isolated and matched to their sound archives. Along with the sounds of a small barking dog, a crowing rooster and a European police siren, three aircraft were specifically identified: A Pilatus Porter, a Junker JU-52, and a Mirage III jet fighter. All three aircraft were verified to be on location the day of the recording. Doppler shift calculations were consistent with each respective aircraft’s normal speed and flight patterns. The target sound(the UFO) could not be matched with anything in their sound archive. No signs of tape dubbing were found. Once again these sound analyses have never been scientifically refuted nor have these sounds ever been duplicated to the same testing standards.

The metal-crystal analysis has been refuted only by a biased party: IIG has a monetary interest to protect by dismissing the Meier case thus Alvarado’s “deconstruction” is suspect.

Meier’s 8mm film footage contains unique movements which include varying pendulum periods, wake turbulence affecting a tree top, a smooth 270º turn and a gradually increasing conical pendulum with no discernible hand pulls. Until these and other unique movements have been duplicated they have not been debunked.

A recent analysis of sphere reflections very much complicate the trash lid theory by calculating an object diameter of 10-ft. This analysis is also yet to be scientifically refuted.

To summarize: Meier’s evidence has indeed been scientifically validated free of hoax, none of it imagined. Additionally, none of it has ever been duplicated to the same standards therefore none of it has been proven to be an “outright, blatant” hoax.

This commenter seems to use the same pseudo-scientific lingo and attempts to mislead and distract with gobbly-gook phrasing and wide-reaching (false) statements (like that Meier’s photos have never been proven to be hoaxed.

It’s honestly a waste of time to go around in circles with people like this.

Mahesh’s team’s wonderful efforts at BMUFOR is refreshing. The work is thankless, and something few researchers are willing to take the time to go through — but ultimately the efforts of BMUFOR will better educate newcomers who may be misled by folks like Michael Horn and other Meier followers who use deceptive phrasing and lies about Meier’s photographs, to enthrall newcomers and entrap them into believe that these could actually be legitimate photographs.

It blows my mind that such an obvious hoax persists even to this day, so many years later — but I think that is more a symptom of a poorly-educated society than anything else. Once education is improved, I believe hoaxes like Meier’s will fade into obscurity.

Anyway – keep up the excellent work Mahesh. You are doing the world a wonderful service.

Taro

**Editor’s Note**

This commenter’s comment was removed for posting under a fake identity.

First you write: “Some of them were of course hoaxed but never proven to be hoaxed by Meier himself.”

…which is a good sign, because you’re finally admitting that it’s already been proven that some were hoaxed (if some were hoaxed, then why on Earth would you trust anything else coming from the hoaxer??)

Then, you contradict yourself by writing:

“There is ZERO scientific proof that Meier’s UFO photos were hoaxed by Meier or anyone else. This is fact.”

Apparently, you aren’t capable of even convincing yourself what’s true and what’s not — and your attempts to convince other people here are just as convoluted and confusing as the contradiction pointed out here. You sound JUST LIKE Michael Horn himself.

I haven’t researched your point of origin to see if you’re just another one of his many online sock-puppets, but now I’m wondering if that might be worthwhile.

Readers: After emailing Taro tonight, Michael Horn – the ever-present Meier-Hoax promoter, responded — proving once again that Taro is yet another one of Michael Horns many fake sock-puppets that he uses for commenting on the Internet on anything related to Meier.

Mahesh – I just wanted you to know that we will be promoting every single investigation you complete regarding Meier. Just send me an update whenever you have a new report out, and I’ll be more than happy to publish it. You and your team are doing excellent work here.

“(if some were hoaxed, then why on Earth would you trust anything else coming from the hoaxer??)”

How can you be so sure you already know who is the real hoaxer? As I have already stated, they were,

“never proven to be hoaxed by Meier himself”

You are making the ASSUMPTION that Meier hoaxed these photos while there is ZERO proof that he actually did. What I trust is my own logic:

1) Meier has never been PROVEN a hoaxer. This is SPECULATION only. 2) His explanations for his photos have never been proven false. In fact, they have been CORROBORATED by the Stevens investigation. 3) His scientifically validated evidence supports his claims. 4) The analyses validating this evidence has never been properly refuted. 5) This evidence has never been duplicated to the same standards.

I have never contradicted myself:

Photos that may very well have been hoaxed by OTHERS have no relevance to his scientifically validated UFO photos. Until you can somehow rule out tampering by outside influences OR prove without a shadow of a doubt that Meier was solely responsible for his hoaxed photos, there is ZERO connection. The contradiction is in your mind only.

You have accused me of false statements without supporting it. You have accused me of illogical comments and contradictions when my statements show otherwise. Now you accuse me of engaging in fraud by posing as someone that I am not. This is purely suspicious and paranoid behaviour. Is this the journalistic standard you espouse?

Not that I am obligated to prove who I am to you since my comments have been perfectly reasonable but I’ll save you the trouble:

My full name is Taro Istok. I live in Canada. I am currently a graphic artist. You can Google my name and see that

A) I am not Michael Horn B) I do not work for Michael Horn C) I do not work for Billy Meier D) You can verify my identity by sending me a specific message citing this very thread on my website.

Why don’t you spend your time researching Billy Meier’s “point of origin” rather than taking someone else’s word for it or wasting your time worrying about who I am? I am someone who HAS spent time researching the Meier case and has come to the conclusion that it is genuine. What more do you really need to know about me?

As I mentioned to you via email – we got inundated with Horn’s sock-puppets early on (confirmed via matching IP addresses), but I just stopped publishing anyone directly connected to him. When you bcc’d him in your email to me, that implied a pretty tight connection with him and/or the Meier cult.

With that said, your statement above that you are not him is good enough.

You DID contradict yourself as shown in the two statements I provided where you said, first, that they were hoaxed by someone, then in your conclusion you said they were not hoaxed at all. I assume you must have meant “by Meier” and just forgot to leave that part out then. Fair enough.

This comment is an illogical fallacy however: “[The Meier photos]….have never been proven false. ” — “proven false” is a frequently used term by lay people who are unfamiliar with how science works.

Thanks Ken! I thought Gabrielle did a great job as well – it certainly makes the Meier believers & cultists unhappy, but that’s the nature of the beast when you’re dealing with a fraud of this magnitude.

**Editor’s Note** – Even after my statement above, attempting to make amends with this commentor, Taro went into yet another diatribe filled with attacks and vitriol – again, not unlike Horn’s own typical approach. If not Horn, then apparently cut from the same cloth!

I’m not going to bother publishing it in full, because it’ll just provoke more nonsense. However I will answer a few of his questions here:

“It has been 7-days since I posted my most recent comment. If, as you say, (Ryan:)”your statement above that you are not him is good enough” then you would have posted my most recent comment much sooner AND unblocked my comments[…]”

It is true – I moved them to the trash folder, and after writing the concession above as a token of goodwill, I did not take even more time to go through that folder and restore your oh-so-important comments. But believe it or not, it isn’t some vast conspiracy. You see, some of us have actual work to do — you know, a job — and don’t have the luxury, like some people, of spending countless hours on the Internet typing up 15-paragraph comments or spending hours griping about it on forums.

“(Taro:)”How have you connected me directly with Horn?” Are you suggesting that ANY communication with Mr. Horn results in an immediate blocking of comments? Isn’t this a bit draconian?”

No…you are intentionally ignoring the central point that I made, and that is that INSTEAD of having a normal communication like an ethical and mature person, you BCC’d Horn on the exchange. For readers who don’t know – BCC stands for BLIND carbon copy — which means you are hiding the fact that you’re sharing the email exchange with someone else. Taro’s hiding of that fact – and Horn’s inadvertent reply (he likely didn’t realize it was a bcc and not a regular cc) revealed this.

So, no, not ANY communication, but YOUR specific, unethical behavior – sneaking around rather than being forthright and honest, revealed your true intentions.

“Are you suggesting that an individual coming to a conclusion on his own about a CONTROVERSIAL UFO case AUTOMATICALLY gains him membership to Meier’s group? Is this professional calibre research?”

No – I’m suggesting anyone who is apparently so easily driven into a blind rage over a few insignificant comments floating around within a sea of millions upon millions of web pages on the Internet — is clearly driven by something that has nothing to do with logic, reason and restraint. Quite the opposite. And that behavior, as we’ve seen through the years and in countless interactions with cult-like believers of other obviously-fake UFO stories – follows the same patterns.

“Are you suggesting that you do not even consider the content of a person’s comment before deciding its fate?”

I am suggesting that I consider the person’s behavior and character as just as important, if not more important, than the words he types.

Meier supporters most often make sweeping statements like that but rarely talk about the facts (and lack of solid evidence/verification).

anonymous

You are not the first and the last one defaming Billy. Just google ‘Billy Meier hoax’, you will get thousands of results. If you recycle online resources that was designed to against Billy, sure you do believe in your way of ‘logical explanation’. ‘Believe’ is cognitive bias. What kind of evidence that make you ‘believe’ in like, Adamski, whom wrote several books with his experiences? You believe in not believing Billy. I experience myself through searching of the truth in reading Billy’s enormous amount of writings and information, especially in the Spirit Teachings, if you are open to look into them. I am not here to provoke anybody. But if this is an academic paper, it not quite enough with citing only the secondary references, to objected his UFO photos, while the original references in Spirit Teachings(how to be a better person) is omitted.

I am not a member of FIGU and do not have contact with Micheal Horn. Please excuse my absence that I will not visit this page again, my silence does not represent in agreeing with any counts. (wrote in May 2016)

Mark

Its not our job to show you the facts.. Don’t be so lazy and go do it on your own. We have been through the thousands of pages of documentation and come to our OWN conclusion. After YEARS(since 2002 myself) of reading and studying his info we could care less what anyone thinks because most of their opinions are based on 2 hours or less of work. When you have YEARS in, then come back and ask us questions. Problem is most people in the UFO community or whatever community they claim to be in, are just looking for flash in the pan stuff to sell books or videos. Most are just lazy know it all’s that have no reason. I laugh at most of the things they are claiming aren’t real because if they weren’t so lazy and read the material, they would find their own answer. That’s how WE know when someone hasn’t read Billy’s material because their questions are so childish.

Iain John McFarlane

I have been interested in the UFO phenomenon for 40 plus years and I’m stunned to learn that Meier is still even being discussed.From the first photos,drawings and accounts all those years ago I immediately burst out laughing and wrote the guy off as a fraud.I got so tired of his excuses,qualifications and revised explanations I stopped paying him heed and wrote him off as a major hoaxer.Didnt his wife/partner reveal years ago what he was up to?Anyway I assumed he’d faded out of the scene many years ago.Surprised to find anyone still wasting their time on the wily old fox.Given him a good living I guess but his ‘craft’the bin lid with the ball bearings stuck on crossed him off my list of potential witnesses a long time ago.

madethatway

I don’t doubt he’s had experiences/sightings and/or contact with ET’s – after all, countless people around the world have by now – myself and ex partner included.

That kind of stuff’s just not ‘news’ anymore and it’s kind of sad that some people still think it is. The world has kind of moved beyond the, ‘Oh, hey! Look! A ufo!’ to, ‘Ok, we know about this, so let’s get to the nitty gritty and start learning from them’.

I do feel, though, that his ego is out of control with his constant insistence that he can be the only one to have any such contact. Worse still, his claim that he’s some kind of prophet suggests to me that he’s a sandwich short of a picnic. Ugh.

He really couldn’t have hurt his credibility any more if he’d painted a bullseye on himself.

And then there’s that wonderfully comic movie, ‘Paul’ – my mother always said, ‘there’s never a truer word spoken than those spoken in jest’.

Simon Edwards

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca97b08c9b2204e8457e56fd36602dfedc0e8d650fd468eb0f756316111fe06d.jpg And your authority is what exactly? More general sweeping statements for gullible believers. You know nothing about what someone may have researched, regardless of how you say it, unless you have your crystal ball out for that too. The Meier case is so full of bs it’s not funny. Just out of interest, what intergalactic craft needs a hoop at the top for string? All believers ignore this and never answer the question.

Simon Edwards

My god, you’ll believe anything because someone said so… Dilettoso doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to photography, so how can he “analyse” something he knows nothing about? And all on 2nd – 3rd generation prints… Which again completely invalidates any analysis. If he’s so legit, release the original slides, not reprint upon reprint. Until then and “expert analysis” is a pure joke.

The Plejaren needs no “s” at the end, the word is already plurial, you might want to correct it.

… “As inhabitants of this system, we are called Plejaren; however in relation to the individual the N at the end of the term changes or is omitted, so therefore a woman is a Plejara and a man is a Plejare.”

One Plejare, many Plejaren.

James Moore

Good article however you do not consider the lengths that secret services go to in order to keep the status quo. This is just one possibility for apparent fraud in this alien contactee case among many. It may not be probable but it is still possible. If you want to analyse an event comprehensively then consider all possibilities not just the most likely possibility according to your judgement. I’m not referring to the CIA here. I’m referring to any secret organization that receives significant funding and there are likely many of these the world over. Open your eyes unless you fear the consequences.

morad peydayesh

For your kind is too early to digest Billy Meier’s material. Clinton/Trump’s discussion’s news or the similar daily events more suit your brains….

OK James Moore, you brilliant man, then why did the CIA ask Wendell Stevens to report what he found on his trip? And then they set up a station right up the hill, and have been listening ever since? Hmm?

gregdougall

You’ve never read one contact report. It’s obvious how much you don’t know about his life by your comments.

gregdougall

Yes, you’ve solved it! The one armed farmer with no money from rural Switzerland who doesnt have a college education is a master filmmaker, sound recording artist, metallurgist, special effects producer, oh wait this was before computers and photoshop and he shot everything on 8mm and 35mm film. He made 1510 fake pieces of visual evidence and then found 125 people to make up false statements, and then he got the Swiss Airforce to fly back and forth past his fake models 20 times in a fighter jet. OK.

gregdougall

Good job Ryan. Prove to me how he faked 23 documented assassination attempts on his life?

gregdougall

You know there are REAL scientists who have confirmed Billy Meier’s information and evidence which was not falsified, right? Maybe you need to investigate these hoaxers: Marcel Vogel, IBM Matthew Wieczkiewicz, Nasa Aerospace Engineer (Ret) Kenneth Smith, Director of Operations at Orbital Launch System Group (Ret) Let me know your findings right away!

gregdougall

The following response was given on February 3rd, 1998, during the 260th Contact:

Ptaah: …”Overall, as we’ve determined through detailed investigations, you had made 1,476 photos with your Olympus ECR 35 mm camera, as well as 34 films with your movie camera that you could use with just one hand. Of the photos, several hundred were stolen from you, and moreover, at least which we could clarify, 230 of these were falsified. There was also falsifying through the manipulation of several films, and to be sure, in the way that our aircraft were suddenly represented as though these had been suspended from thin strings or wires, etc., and so, the impression was made that these were models….”

gregdougall

What have you investigated Ryan? Have you been to Switzerland? Have you interviewed any of the 125 eye witnesses? Have you talked to the other photographers? Have you even met Meier? Have you read ANY of his books or contact reports? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Do you have anything other than the 50 fake planted photographs? Actually did you know that there were 230 falsifications and not just 50? Wow! And now you losers only need to debunk 1,280 more pieces of physical evidence! Should be fun. Then you have to move on to investigating the other evidence though.

gregdougall

Boom this guy dropped the microphone on you. He realized you aren’t worth helping.

gregdougall

Oh this is just too good: 1.Please point to research that proves that the Hasenbol series of UFO photographs of Meier’s are small models. I Remind you that someone else making a toy UFO and taking a picture of it is not proof that Meier did so. 2.Show me one high resolution photograph of Phil Langdon’s efforts compared to a high resolution of Meier’s which are now available to see.. But especially the closeup of the WCUFO . 3. Why did Phil Langdon who spent several months building toy ufos and hanging them from trees in fields in England refuse to be flown out for free to test his model theory in the location Meier shot one of his most famous pictures.. 4. Why are no skeptics currently attacking the clear daylight UFO pictures of Meiers with any actual scrutiny except with emotional childish rants about bin lids. 5. Ask them if they can determine the size of an object in a photo by simply shouting ” I think you are small!” at it really loudly and angrily. Answer those questions.

gregdougall

Please tell me how Billy Meier faked 23 documented assassination attempts on his life, and for extra credit, tell me why so many people would try to kill him if this was a hoax? For Advanced Debunkers Only: Please tell me how Billy Meier got the Swiss Airforce to fly a fighter jet back and forth by one of his UFOs 20 times, and got it all on film?

gregdougall

I have a question for the founder: Are the top secret writers you guys, or the people whose comments you delete?

Hi Greg — we get a LOT of spam comments with people trying to promote their hoax, or sell a product. So I have to manually review and approve every single comment. It doesn’t always happen before 24 hours, that’s why you see a delay.

It’s up to a person to prove something happened, not up to other people to prove something didn’t happen. You can’t prove a negative. Where is the evidence of these alleged “23 documented assassination attemps”?